We have lobbied
Rep. Adam Smith and
Rep. Jim McDermott hard on CAFTA. We think the minuses far outweigh the pluses, for reasons too numerous to mention in this diary.
Today, we got some good news from Adam Smith. Not only he, but three other members of the New Democratic Coalition, informed Bush they would be voting NO, in this letter, reprinted in full below the fold:
May 4, 2005
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to express our disappointment about the U.S.-Central
America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) and your
Administration's failure to create an economic policy that will lead to a
real consensus on trade. Due to the DR-CAFTA's inadequate protections for
workers' rights, as well as your Administration's refusal to invest
adequately in the American workforce and economy, we will oppose this
agreement when it comes to the Floor of the House.
As members of the New Democrat Coalition, we support trade as a part of a
long term strategy to grow both our economy and the world economy. Lowering
tariffs and advancing economic engagement among nations not only helps the
American economy, it also can provide real opportunity to those in the
developing world who are working to eradicate poverty, build their nations
and bring prosperity to their people.
Yet we also believe it is critically important to build a national
consensus--one that does not currently exist--around the importance of trade.
Such a consensus requires that trade agreements be balanced and fair for
American workers and companies as well as for the nations with which we seek
to engage. It also requires that domestic policies be put in place to
assist Americans in transitioning to the global economy. Your
Administration has failed on both of these critical fronts.
First, the labor provisions in the DR-CAFTA are inadequate and constitute a
step backwards on workers' rights. The agreement would weaken labor rights
protections currently available under the United States' existing trade
preference programs with the region. This is unacceptable. The
Administration has aggressively negotiated intellectual property and
investor rights provisions in the agreement, but has simply not taken the
same approach to protecting workers' rights. Further, we have little reason
to believe that workers' rights will be a priority for this Administration.
For example, shortly after the Jordan trade agreement was completed, the
White House exchanged side letters with Jordan establishing that, in effect,
there would be no real enforcement of the labor provisions.
Second, the fiscal choices made during your Administration--including massive
tax cuts and irresponsible spending increases--have undermined our country's
ability to invest in domestic programs like education, skills training and
research and development. Indeed, despite progress made in recent years to
improve the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, budget cuts have left
many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program at
a time they need it most. We cannot simply stand by as the Administration's
fiscal choices continue to undercut the domestic investments necessary for a
broad national consensus on trade.
If we are to build a consensus on trade here at home, we must address some
of the effects of trade on the American workforce and on our ability to
compete in the global marketplace. We must fund and provide for skills
training and lifelong learning so workers have the opportunity to
continually upgrade their skills or pursue a new career. We must invest in
K-12 education so our children can become the next generation of American
scientists, engineers, teachers and business leaders. We must invest in
research and development so the government is a partner with universities,
businesses and entrepreneurs in developing the next great round of
innovation that will drive our economy and create the jobs of the future.
If we are to build such a consensus abroad, we must understand that workers'
rights are crucial to ensuring that developing nations fully and effectively
participate in the global economy. Trade agreements must be a tool for
helping lift workers abroad out of poverty, provide them the opportunity
they so desperately need and eventually move them into a larger global
middle class. We must use trade to prevent the creation of a permanent
underclass of workers who have no hope of a better life and who simply
provide a pool of inexpensive labor.
Your Administration has shown no willingness to engage with pro-trade
Democrats in order to build a true consensus on trade in this country. We
are particularly disappointed that, thus far, you have shown far greater
willingness to consider the parochial interests of protectionists than to
address the concerns of free trade supporters such as ourselves.
We cannot support a trade agreement the size and scope of the DR-CAFTA given
the concerns outlined above.
Sincerely,
ELLEN TAUSCHER ADAM SMITH
Member of Congress Member of Congress
ARTUR DAVIS RON KIND
Member of Congress Member of Congress
CAFTA was already in some trouble for several other reasons, including opposition from the sugar lobby, as this report yesterday from Bloomberg indicates.
This one's not out of the woods yet. If your Representative or Senator is still undecided, please turn up the heat. If we can turn CAFTA back because of environmental and labor concerns, we can do the same for the more odious provisions of NAFTA.